Last post on Oct 23, 2013 at 3:46 PM
You are in the Audi A6
What is this discussion about?
Audi A6, Sedan
#6314 of 6921 Re: "3.2" Liter Non-Existant Acceleration [psychdoc]
May 31, 2006 (7:30 am)
When Audi first announced the C6 A6's they proclaimed a 0 - 100KPH capability of 7.1 seconds. Fine, I thought, the 3.2 A6 is the replacement for the 3.0 V6 equipped A6.
Audi has typically (in the US) had a regular V6 and turbo V6 and since 1999 (MY2000) a V8. The new "3.2" 255HP is a bit more potent than the last V6 2.7T (before the SLine Swan Song in 2004 of the 2.7T equipped A6.)
Then no "middle child" was announced.
Then the pricing of the A6 3.2 was announced and it was priced like the outgoing A6 2.7T -- which even with it's 5 speed Tiptronic was capable of 0-100KPH in 6.4 seconds.
The entire world of LPS cars at that time (apparently except the Lexus family) was keenly interested in bragging rights (so it seemed then, and actually so it seems now) about either HP or time to 60MPH (not 100KPH.)
I wrote (here there and everywhere), "what was Audi thinking?" A 3% lowering of the final drive ratio would certainly shave off the needed .1 second, allowing Audi USA to proclaim the new A6 C6 3.2 able to accelerate to 60MPH NOT in 7.0 seconds but in 6.9 seconds (which from a marketing standpoint is NOT immaterial.)
The car came to market with a new 6 speed automatic (on the heels of a long cry about tip-lag in the previous gen 5 speed tip.) The car came to market underpowered -- BMW and Lexus of course continuing on in 2005 with even more "iron poor blood."
But, then the 2006's came out and both BMW and Lexus (in their 6 cylinder models) upped their power. Lexus lagged by 15 and BMW equalled the mighty "HP" number of 255 (which in this crowd was still pretty low, relatively speaking.)
The Audi A6 is a somewhat heavier car in this class. But, in defense of the car, it should be heavier since it came standard with almost 200 pounds of AWD gear. The 530xi and the M35x and the GS with AWD also weigh more than their 2WD siblings.
The 3.2 is technically, as has been written, 3.1+ Liters. So what if they round it up (or down, for that matter.)
It's not the meat its the motion or something like that.
The V6 FSI "3.2" Audi engine is a strong performer, it is capable of propelling the A6 and 4 people down the highway at 90MPH all the while sipping gas.
It has a nearly V8 sound at full throttle, too.
Alas, the state of the world (from the US perspective) means that the A6 C6 "3.2" engine is simply adequate.
My favorite engines are the Audi 4.2L V8's -- no question.
However, I am, personally, delighted with the high speed cruising ability, "acceptable" acceleration from a dead stop and miserly fuel sipping ways this "little engine that could" offers.
I have longed for this engine to be given the Audi Bi-turbo "lite" tuning, for that would certainly crank its HP to 300 and its torque to at least 293 (+50 over the normally aspirated version.) This engine has a lot going for it.
It may be replaced, though, with the 280HP 3.6L sibling, soon to show up in the Q7 and already offered in the Passat.
In perspective, this is a great engine -- and despite this praise, I still wonder "what were they thinking" in not giving us a little more beef either under the hood or via the gearing.
#6315 of 6921 Re: "3.2" Liter Non-Existant Acceleration [psychdoc]
May 31, 2006 (7:44 am)
When I first got my 3.1....... I was not happy with the acceleration. I previously had the 2.7 turbo and complained on various forums about the point you are bringing up. Audi has programed this engine to open up at various stages. At 5,000 miles it starts to clear it throat. At 15,000 even more so. Right now I'm at 20,000 + and it's feels like it's revving at it's full potential. Another 25,000 miles and I'll be leasing a new one. Kind of strange, seems like a waste of 15,000 miles in a car that really does have umph to it. Audi engineers should rethink this. Most people want instant gratification, at least after the 1,000 mile break in.
Bottom line is it's a great car. Fun to drive after "extended break in" and built solid like a tank. I do a lot of highway miles with my wife and kid in the rear and I don't think there's a safer car on the road, except for a Hummer:)
#6316 of 6921 Re: "3.2" Liter Non-Existant Acceleration [markcincinnati]
May 31, 2006 (7:55 am)
"It may be replaced, though, with the 280HP 3.6L sibling, soon to show up in the Q7 and already offered in the Passat."
Really? Ummm, I thought that the 3.6 liter mill in the Passat was a VR6. If so, isn't that engine too long to fit longitudinally in the A6?
#6317 of 6921 Re: "3.2" Liter Non-Existant Acceleration [markcincinnati]
May 31, 2006 (7:59 am)
***I have longed for this engine to be given the Audi Bi-turbo "lite" tuning, for that would certainly crank its HP to 300 and its torque to at least 293 (+50 over the normally aspirated version.) This engine has a lot going for it.***
Very good point. Volvo has been using the "lite turbo/full blown turbo model" for years and it's an excellent idea. A number of years ago I owned a Volvo 850 turbo (the full blown version) and it flew. In fairness I must say it also ate up gas like no one's business, but that little 5 cylinder flew. After that I owned the 850gtb (or whatever the heck they called it) which was essentially the "lite turbo" version of this same engine. It was very nice and definitely was able to motivate the car to get going. It had a bit of turbo lag and also burned a bit too much gas for a small displacement engine.
As Audi has a long and venerable history in doing turbos and doing them right, one does have to wonder why, as a possible alternative to jumping displacement up, they would not add a light turbo to this otherwise anemic engine.
It's either time for that new 3.6 or a turbo treatment of this thing. In a world where the new Lexus ES350 is coming to market with a 272hp 3.5, this 3.1 Audi engine is pathetically outclassed. Add the weight of the quattro system and you have a real disaster here.
Time to retire the naturally aspirated 3.1!
#6318 of 6921 Re: "3.2" Liter Non-Existant Acceleration [psychdoc]
May 31, 2006 (8:45 am)
Like I said before the engine has an extended break in period and were only talking about .5 to 1 second. Mark's point is very true. On the highway the car has plenty of gusto and great mileage to boot. I get 25 MPG's at 70 MPH. To be fair I have not driven the 530x, but I did drive an M35x and an '05 530i. The 530i to me was no racehorse and the M35 was not as refined as the Audi. I looked at the whole picture and chose the 3.111111:)
#6319 of 6921 Re: "3.2" Liter Non-Existant Acceleration [shipo]
May 31, 2006 (10:23 am)
As far as I know, though, there is room for the 3.6L -- the HP figure (280) is the same as the Passat's 3.6L and after all Audi and VW share and share alike.
I certainly could stand to be corrected -- but, from all I have read the 3.6L engine coming soon in the Q7 IS the Passat engine (perhaps tuned for the Q7 application.)
I love the 3.2 FSI engine and genuinely believe the car has been delivered with about the lowest possible performance this engine can be tuned for.
The engine, one would imagine, would probably respond to better breathing (pre turboing), better engine management programming and higher quality fuel (which is supposed to allow the FSI to really show its stuff.)
The FSI with higher quality fuel can be made to be more efficient AND more effective. Somewhere I read that 275HP would not even require the engineers to break into a sweat (plus there would a few more pounds of torque, even before turbo charging.)
Now that Audi is temporarily out of the turbocharging era, BMW has picked up on it in their 3.0 i6.
One would imagine the 3.2 liter engine could be bi turbo'd by Audi's engineers with half their brains tied behind their backs and be brought to market at -- what -- 295HP for "marketing reasons?" (i.e., it just wouldn't do having the 3.2 V6 have a HP number that started with a "3" until the 4.2 exceeds 350 -- it rises TO 350 this year with better economy now that it too will come with the FSI treatment.)
So much of this HAS to be marketing. Audi quietly cranked up the 2.7T's HP AND torque in the swan song A6 C5 2.7T SLine -- and it easily outgunned the more expensive 4.2 A6 C5 version. There was a brief period of time (2 or 3 YEARS) where the published 0-60 time of the A6 2.7T was 6.0 seconds flat -- quicker even than the S6 Avant that was offered to us 'mericans.
Audi (and BMW, et al) are "playing with us" retarding the outputs of some of these engines for either legal, political, financial or marketing reasons. It is the way it is, the race, so to speak, continues.
Pull a rabbit out of my hood!
Gently blow on the "3.2" L engine, offer the DSG 7 speed transmission, improve the f/r weight balance just a smidge, blow the 40/60 f/r torque split horn, wrap it up and put it in an A6 with 19" wheels and tires, oversized brakes and a sport suspension. Call it an AS6 for pity's sake and GLH.
#6320 of 6921 Re: "3.2" Liter Non-Existant Acceleration [jeqq]
May 31, 2006 (10:24 am)
I recently drove a 2006 530xi and felt the Avant was quicker with a more refined transmission. For the additional money ($6-$8,000) that BMW wanted on a comparably-equipped vehicle, it was no contest. The 3.1+ really shines in the mid-range; Audi may not beat you off the start, but it will beat you around the curve and to the line....that's enough for me. Finally, driving the Avant made me smile.
#6321 of 6921 Re: 2006 vs 2007 [rayainsw] - torque [sfcharlie]
May 31, 2006 (10:37 am)
"itís plausible that V8 torque will match the 350hp V8 in the Q7 which generates 325 lbs.-ft. 3,500 rpm. "
Hmmm . .
I'd certainly like to see more than an increase of 15 - and \ or at a lower RPM . .
Perhaps it will be worth driving one again.
Torque addict . .
#6322 of 6921 Re: "3.2" Liter Non-Existant Acceleration [jeqq]
May 31, 2006 (10:52 am)
The Audi "3.2" engine gets an extra dose of power at 5,000 miles and another one at 10,000 -- the subsequent doses are relatively minor but, damn if they aren't discernable by the seat of one's pants (the buttometer.)
These subjective observations are made again and again by many of us, to the point that I think for our purposes we cannot simply write them off as myth.
However, the A6 is much better at the 440, 880 yard "dash" than it is the 50 or 100 yard sprint -- you just can't get around it.
Yet to proclaim the thing has "NO POWER" is a huge misrepresentation unless the spirit of the comment was qualified with several disclaimers.
It is, based on published figures, often the case that the differences between the cars in the LPS class are generally within 1 second of each other in terms of their accelerative capabilities.
NONE of this is meant to excuse the A6 or somehow suggest that it is quicker than it really is.
It is in this regard "adequate." Yet, one person's adequate is another person's ample.
The V8 du jour (in June 2005) was not quicker enough to justify both the higher acquisition cost and the higher operational costs -- FOR ME. The 4.2 (which I have had in three Audis) did not make me regret the 3.2. Both my speed and accelerative capabilities (here in greater Cincinnati, Ohio) ARE ample -- even though I objectively know and believe the stats to be simply "adequate."
I had the car up to 80 on the Interstate that encircles Cincinnati today. I could only maintain (safely) that pace for about 1/2 to 3/4 of a mile -- traffic, traffic, traffic. My ability to accelerate from 30 to 80 perhaps was an issue (had I been able to enjoy the rush of the 4.2 engine instead), but heck, I was able to out accelerate (by a wide margin) 75% of the other cars on the road and overall out accelerate by some margin 90% of the cars on the road. And, I was not in a road rage or "playful" drag racing situation, it was just that pulling away from "the clog of cars" was easy (and there were 4 180+ pound men in the car at the time.)
I want more power.
I have, often, convinced myself I need more power.
Then I get on the highway and putt putt along through perpetual construction zones, increasing clog, bone headed cell phone talking drivers (which now regularly exceeds 50% of the cars by my informal count), one accident per 10 miles (or so it seems) and state, county and local highway po-leeece.
To kind of screw up an analogy: even with the 3.2 A6's powerplant, I, more often than not, feel "all dressed up with no where to go."
On the other hand I love the gas mileage this thing can crank out on long, high speed, 4 hour jaunts from Cincinnati to Pittsburgh, as I listen to yet another in a seemingly endless stream of Dan Brown's greatest hits (I am going backwards, listening now to "Digital Fortress!")
Where was I? Oh yea, disk 5 track 3. . ."Translator has a virus, pull the plug!"
#6323 of 6921 Re: 2006 vs 2007 [rayainsw] - torque [sfcharlie] [rayainsw]
May 31, 2006 (11:11 am)
I would assume the 4.2 FSI V8 that will be in the A6 will improve its stats as you suggest.
One thing, how much of that 325 lb/ft is available from, say 2000 - 6000 rpm, 90%??? How is the gearing, what is the final drive ratio and how overdriven is 6th?
And what about the price of lima beans on Tuesday while we're at it.
It seems as if the Germans (not exclusively of course) are able to pull 5, 10 or more percent out of their engineering hats just about anytime they want. Generally, too, this increase in power is offered up with a bit more torque, and a bit more at a lower RPM AND better gas mileage.
Makes you wonder why they just don't throw all the cards over at once and crank up the 4.2 to 400HP (normally aspirated) -- you know they've probably done it already and simply are tweaking the HP figures a little at a time in anticipation of what "the market and the other guy want and are doing."
There is, what?, a coincidence that the BMW i6 cranks out 255HP as does the the Audi A6 V6? Certainly there is a competitive reason to do it, for it could hardly be said to be an engineering "limitation."
And, despite all the somewhat negative tone here these past few posts about the POWER of the A6 3.2, it is tough to dispute the success of the engine and the cars it has been placed in these past two MY's. Audi is ON A ROLL sales wise (not to suggest anything about any other car mfgr.) -- records were set with the A6 all over the world and sales and profits of the newest gen of Audi cars has buoyed the company to produce the Q7, RS4, S6, S8, announce the Q5 and A5 and of course the S3 even.
While some of us may think "woe is we" with our wimpy A6 3.2's, they are in Audi's history, setting sales records, breaking them and setting them again.
Not too shabby for cars with NO POWER, eh?